God and Science are not mutually exlcusive......

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed. Though there are a lot of progressive religious scholars (ie, they know their s**t) who are religious who don't discount science. There are ways to work with science that allows religious convictions to survive as a peer, but that requires a full restructuring of one's hermeneutical relationship with religion/God(s)/holy things/etc. I don't find the OP's argument convincing, but there are ways around religion/science mutual exclusivity.

That said, I'm still an atheist. There are other holes in religious belief that I don't think are patcheable, but I don't consider science one of them.

I like the Dalai Lamas quote: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

The Abrahamic religions should learn some of that.

^ +1

I think you are missing the point. I'll make it simpler: Believing in a creator would not have necessitate religious beliefs. As all of that list would need to be fallible, then Christian beliefs would also need to be fallible. Most of the religious baggage attached simply isn't relevant, even as a proposed scientific hypothesis of creation.

As for 10, creation or abiogenesis, doesn't fit any ideal. Ideals are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you or I think about it. The whole idea of wanting it to fit an ideal is unscientific in a nutshell, and pretty much the point I'm illustrating.

Of course Christian beliefs are fallible. The Church is a human institution and humans are very fallible.

Science and a particular sense of morality are your ideals, and it's beyond denial that they have influenced your approach to these matters. Your outlook is no more objective than any other.

I would have thought the OP was trolling.

Just like religious books, men (and women) created science.

But one of the biggest issues I have with religion is the theological and anthropological ignorance most religious people have or their own texts. And that ignorance is supported by the clergy, dumbing it down to make it easy for the masses.

I have yet to hear of one clergyman (of any ilk) start a sermon or bible study with one of these:

- Parts of the NT were edited long after they were written
- There are two creation stories in Genesis
- Moses didn't write the Torah
- Much of the OT was taken from older religions
- Myth wasn't about history (the modern agenda), but about other truths (the ancient agenda)

You can only make assumptions about why sermons and bible studies won't ever use any of those, but I can't think of a good reason for it.

Is God and Creation the same thing?

Depends on what you think caused creation. There are credible hypotheses which show how creation occurs via purely naturalistic causes, which is far more credible than demanding a supernatural cause which has no evidence and relies upon lack of knowledge to support the belief.

As soon as you have Creation all figured out, we will call it God.

This uses same logic as the natives on an island who think that the volcano erupting is caused by a god.

For the pantheists.

In the Abrahamic religions -there is God- and then there is Creation (nature, matter, whatever). The Creator created everything- and they are two seperate things. And God sits in his throne rules over creation.

In the more Pantheistic (everything is god) religions they dont distinqish between the creator and creation. Creation is part of the divine.

So, take your pick.

All the religious books contain many, simple errors that are scientific fact. They all strangely reflect the beliefs of man (beyond just that particular religion) at the time the texts were written and/or 'discovered'. If these texts were the word of whichever version of the all knowing god we are talking about you'd expect it to be completely accurate in terms of what we now know to be fact. I'm not even talking about complex theories, but things like the earth being round and rotating around the sun etc.

At absolute best they could only ever be considered interpretations of the word of god and given it is man doing the interpretation I'm sure you can't rule out some creative licence also.

As such it's science for me.

Science-----------> WHAT God did, and HOW God did it.

Philosophy/Religion------------------> WHY God did it, and WHERE it's going.

^ I assume that is satire?